Good news and bad news from the Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey world that is Southern California airports...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060120/news_7m20airport.html

The good news is traffic at SAN is up 6.1% from the previous year (against predictions that it would only go up 2.3%), and air cargo business is up an impressive 23.3%! For a city struggling to fix the financial mess that a Banana Republic third-world dictator would be proud of, travellers = income for the city (but that's a whole different story).

The bad news comes with the predictions that SAN will now max out at capacity at this rate sooner rather than later. Help!! Help!! The sky is falling!!

A couple of questions here:

1) The article mentions that most airports are growing at less than 4%. Are there any airports growing at a rate that SAN is achieving?

2) SAN will always be an O&D airport. Flights arrive/depart in coordination with airlines' hub times. Being on the west coast, it can be a zoo early in the morning, but that is certainly true at all west coast airports between 6 and 8 AM. Are the doom and gloom predictions true? I have always found SAN to calm down after that first rush and generally assume a fairly consistent arrival/departure pattern throughout the rest of the day.

3) Is there really a need to extend the runway? This question I ask because our longest flights at the moment are to Boston (AA, 738) and Honolulu (HA, 767-300). Both planes have no problem using the runway. The only plane to ever have had an issue was the 747-400, which is no longer a visitor here. BA's 777 was certified to take-off fully loaded and fly nonstop to LHR, and was further able to do so, if necessary, on only one engine. Also, with the future introduction of the 787 and its correspondingly short take-off length for ULR flights (SAN-NRT maybe?), is a longer runway going to be needed?

4) Finally, SAN has a lot of wasted space on the southwest side - and the future of these buildings is currently tied up in court. Yes, litigation in American courts moves slower than the petrification of wood, I know, but couldn't the empty buildings on that corner be torn down? There is so much that could be done, in my humble opinion, with just a simple re-organization of space. Could the use of that space off-set new passenger facilities?

Whew!! Thank you for putting up with my ranting and raving - your replies are all most welcome - and happy flying to all!!   

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): The article mentions that most airports are growing at less than 4%. Are there any airports growing at a rate that SAN is achieving?

SNA is maxing out so people are driving to SAN vs SNA from North Coastal areas, that and Cruise ships.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Being on the west coast, it can be a zoo early in the morning, but that is certainly true at all west coast airports between 6 and 8 AM. Are the doom and gloom predictions true?

This is why they need two runways. They are reaching a point where SAN is going to look a lot like La Guardia. You also need gates, and you can't build enough. You need parallel taxiways, and you can't do that either. North side doesn't work because of the lack of a full length taxiway. The airport is limited to 62 gates, with a practical of 58. Add to that every time the weather takes a dump 100 or so flights get diverted or canceled.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Is there really a need to extend the runway?

The useful length and terrain already prevents a 737-800/A-319 from getting off the ground using 9 without a penalty. This creates major problems because you can't get a CAT I ILS to 27 where departure is not an issue. You can't extend it anyway without major environmental hurdles and the airport already has insufficient safety areas much like MDW.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): Finally, SAN has a lot of wasted space on the southwest side - and the future of these buildings is currently tied up in court.

It's alot of wasted space, and most of it is a waivered obstruction. You don't have the roadway access to support full development of that area.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 1): This is why they need two runways. They are reaching a point where SAN is going to look a lot like La Guardia. You also need gates, and you can't build enough. You need parallel taxiways, and you can't do that either. North side doesn't work because of the lack of a full length taxiway. The airport is limited to 62 gates, with a practical of 58. Add to that every time the weather takes a dump 100 or so flights get diverted or canceled.

Exactly. We need that extra runway and gate capacity because this growth probably isn't going to stop soon... recapping, SAN got the following new airlines in 2005:

• Air Canada Jazz
  
• Aeromexico (increased flights)
  
• Midwest
  
• Independence Air (discontinued)
  
• Westjet (discontinued)
  

Expect more in 2006, and that is why SAN is going to need a new airport in a few years...

Quoting San747 (Reply 2): Expect more in 2006, and that is why SAN is going to need a new airport in a few years...

Sad thing is it'll take 20 years to open it. I can't imagine the mess it will be leading up to that.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): 1) The article mentions that most airports are growing at less than 4%. Are there any airports growing at a rate that SAN is achieving?

In terms of passenger count, LAS is up in the 6-7 % range. I don't know how we are doing on freight volume. See article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this is a portion of the whole article:



Date: December 29, 2005
Author:
Section: Business
Page: 1D
Words: 414

McCarran count tops 40 million

By CHRIS JONES GAMING WIRE

For just the second time in its nearly 60-year history, McCarran International Airport has exceeded 40 million annual passengers, the Clark County Aviation Department said Wednesday.

Through November, the Las Vegas gateway hosted more than 40.7 million arriving and departing passengers, up 6.9 percent from its 2004 pace.

McCarran last year handled nearly 41.5 million passengers, a record it should easily exceed once this month's passenger

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 4): Are the runway's and taxiway's strong enough to handle jets that heavy?

Not without a lot of money and complaints from the neighbors. The runway also slopes, not so good.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): 2) SAN will always be an O&D airport. Flights arrive/depart in coordination with airlines' hub times. Being on the west coast, it can be a zoo early in the morning, but that is certainly true at all west coast airports between 6 and 8 AM. Are the doom and gloom predictions true? I have always found SAN to calm down after that first rush and generally assume a fairly consistent arrival/departure pattern throughout the rest of the day.

An interesting resource to check out movement patterns at SAN (and other airports) is http://www.flightaware.com. Enter "SAN" into the airport code box on the right, and a page will come up with current airport activity, as well as airport operation graphs. As one may expect, there is a departures spike in the early AM. However, though the operations are a little calmer throughout the rest of the day, that doesn't mean it won't be hell in the morning as SAN reaches capacity.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): 3) Is there really a need to extend the runway? This question I ask because our longest flights at the moment are to Boston (AA, 738) and Honolulu (HA, 767-300). Both planes have no problem using the runway. The only plane to ever have had an issue was the 747-400, which is no longer a visitor here. BA's 777 was certified to take-off fully loaded and fly nonstop to LHR, and was further able to do so, if necessary, on only one engine. Also, with the future introduction of the 787 and its correspondingly short take-off length for ULR flights (SAN-NRT maybe?), is a longer runway going to be needed?

Obviously, at this point, there's no need to extend the runway. But just as obviously, without making improvements to the airport, service enhancements will remain limited at best. BA's 777 actually did have weight restrictions when taking off from SAN, and the service probably would have done better had their been none. Also, it would be foolish to bet, at this point, that the 787 will have no problems reaching destinations farther than LHR. And moreover, what happens if new safety regulations actually shorten SAN's runway? The accident at MDW has again brought into question the safety of runways without overrun zones, especially ones in the middle of populated areas.

Aaron G.

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 8): BA's 777 actually did have weight restrictions when taking off from SAN,

Really, I would think that the flight would be a "light" flight as the plane is only going to PHX, at least it used to, looks like BA dropped the SAN segment, all BA shows from London to SAN is code-share with AA. If the plane is going to PHX, it does not need a whole load of fuel to make that run.

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 9): Really, I would think that the flight would be a "light" flight as the plane is only going to PHX, at least it used to, looks like BA dropped the SAN segment, all BA shows from London to SAN is code-share with AA. If the plane is going to PHX, it does not need a whole load of fuel to make that run.

It was a non stop and it took about a 50,000 penalty.

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 8): Also, it would be foolish to bet, at this point, that the 787 will have no problems reaching destinations farther than LHR.

The 787-8 with the -9 engines can do the LHR/CDG and FRA fully loaded. It's unknown if this thrust will be set based on the engine ordered for the aircraft or if there is just one engine and it can be adjusted on the fly, meaning a carrier can dial up extra power when needed. The 787-3 will have full domestic range from SAN as well as ANC and HNL.

Could the 787 do Japan-SAN with SAN's current runway? I heard time and time again that NH could start 787 service if everything was right...

Quoting Vegasplanes (Reply 9): Really, I would think that the flight would be a "light" flight as the plane is only going to PHX, at least it used to, looks like BA dropped the SAN segment, all BA shows from London to SAN is code-share with AA. If the plane is going to PHX, it does not need a whole load of fuel to make that run.

When BA served SAN with the 747-400, it went SAN-PHX-LGW. When they switched to the 777-200, SAN and PHX both got separate nonstop flights to LGW, and were later moved to LHR before SAN was eventually dropped.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): 1) The article mentions that most airports are growing at less than 4%. Are there any airports growing at a rate that SAN is achieving?

Fresno is growing at just under 6% passenger count for 2005. (5.81% YTD thru Nov with Dec not released yet) 2006 will probably be even higher growth due to MX starting service.

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter): 3) Is there really a need to extend the runway? This question I ask because our longest flights at the moment are to Boston (AA, 738) and Honolulu (HA, 767-300). Both planes have no problem using the runway. The only plane to ever have had an issue was the 747-400, which is no longer a visitor here. BA's 777 was certified to take-off fully loaded and fly nonstop to LHR, and was further able to do so, if necessary, on only one engine. Also, with the future introduction of the 787 and its correspondingly short take-off length for ULR flights (SAN-NRT maybe?), is a longer runway going to be needed?

My perferences aside, I do not see much logic in moving/expanding our airport unless it is to relieve congestion at larger ones like LAX.

Large traffic bound for SAN may not be more than 787 now, I would figure if those flights are done to match certain other traffic at airports then in time the capacities may increase, but that would only happen if 1) 773/747 type aircraft make daily appreances at SAN, or 2) we end up having the facilities to take them by then and it is not an issue.

I just figure than SAN is more south than LAX, so any large traffic causing problems in LAX and happens to have pax who wish their destination to be here could concievably route their traffic here.

I'm kind of a big picture person, I try to focus on more than just one issue.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 15): I'm kind of a big picture person, I try to focus on more than just one issue.

Like the fact that the max buildout is 62 gates for a single runway, and 54 will exist in 5-7 years?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16): Like the fact that the max buildout is 62 gates for a single runway, and 54 will exist in 5-7 years?

I didn't know that -- what did you mean by that?

Hence the relative obvious: the airport MUST expand. I wish people would stop thinking in short term or try to take time into account. The sheer number of loud members that go blitzkreg when carriers make large orders they do not understand is clear to me, they do not consider time

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 13): When BA served SAN with the 747-400, it went SAN-PHX-LGW. When they switched to the 777-200, SAN and PHX both got separate nonstop flights to LGW, and were later moved to LHR before SAN was eventually dropped.

Ah so, did not realized that is was changed to a N/S to London with the 777. Thank You.

So, if BA gets the 787, does that mean they might come back?   

How incredible would that be for photo ops of the new plane?

Thank you for your continued wonderful replies!!   

LAS has got the same problem.. at the current growth rate LAS is going to be at capacity in a few years, and the new airport won't be ready 'till at least 2017.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 20): LAS has got the same problem.. at the current growth rate LAS is going to be at capacity in a few years, and the new airport won't be ready 'till at least 2017.

Well LAS has the same type of problem as SAN, it is land-locked between The Blvd., Sunset Road, Russell can be moved, but definetly not Tropicana. LAS has more gates in the "D's" planned as well as Terminal 3/E Gates, whatever they are calling it. But the major problem is no room for more runways. The way Vegas is growing to the South with Anthem, 7 Hills, Southern Highlands, the Focus Group planned community going southeast from St. Rose and Las Vegas Blvd., Ivanpah is/will be easier to get to than McCarran, the Clark County Dept. of Aviation needs to get working on these things. LAS might have to start restricting the GA traffic, unlikely to happen, move them to VGT and Henderson Executive. Here's an idea, throw up a terminal at Henderson, there is already some sort at VGT with Scenic Airlines and the Grand Canyon tours, and start running charter flights from those airports.  

You can kiss the remote (Campo/Desert) sites goodbye...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060122/news_1m22airport.html

The agency also is reviewing the feasibility of a joint-use facility at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton and North Island Naval Air Station. It also is reviewing East Miramar, prospects for maximizing the single runway at Lindbergh Field and whether there is land in North County for a supplemental, single-runway airport.

Denver was about $5 billion.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17): I didn't know that -- what did you mean by that?

A single runway cannot support more than 58 gates, however there's flexibility for 4 commuter gates that already exist because of the continuous schedule.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17): Hence the relative obvious: the airport MUST expand.

However it can't on the present side without taking out most of Loma Portal and the Midway district. An open "V" through MCRD only nets you a 20% capacity gain and doesn't meet the cost benefit threshold.

In the end there's going to be a second single runway airport built, be it Miramar or North County.

[Edited 2006-01-22 14:10:18]

For clarification on some cost issues. Given inflation, Denver would cost about $13 billion in this time frame of construction, have twice as many runways and at least twice as many gates as a remote airport would have in San Diego.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 22): Quoting Lehpron (Reply 17): Hence the relative obvious: the airport MUST expand. However it can't on the present side without taking out most of Loma Portal and the Midway district. An open "V" through MCRD only nets you a 20% capacity gain and doesn't meet the cost benefit threshold. In the end there's going to be a second single runway airport built, be it Miramar or North County.

Well I stated it must expand, nothing about current real estate. 

Regarding Miramar, how many runways are there now and is it known what MTOW is capable?

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 25): Regarding Miramar, how many runways are there now and is it known what MTOW is capable?

Three runways, only one of which is certified for heavy aircraft. Don't see MTOW specifics, but I have seen An124's departing Miramar.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KNKX

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 25): Regarding Miramar, how many runways are there now and is it known what MTOW is capable?

Use of the existing Miramar runways isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter.

This confussion is tied to what "was" the mid 1980's study led by Roger Hedgecock that had a terminal layout in the vein of MCI and a single runway with room for a second close parallel runway to the South. The useful runway has since aged 20 years.

[Edited 2006-01-23 15:15:09]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27): Use of the existing Miramar runways isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter.

That is where we differ.  

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27): The useful runway has since aged 20 years.

So? Don't airport runways have similar cycles use per landings like airframes? I've lived near there for 20 years, it has not been used that much; if anything, it is during an airshow! Hornets doing touch-and-go's (and blasting all the neighbors with engines that are not even FAR regulated) dozens of times a day for years to me doesn't qualify as using the runway -- how does it age?

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 28): So? Don't airport runways have similar cycles use per landings like airframes? -- how does it age?

Just like everything else. It ages. A concrete runway lifespan is about 40 years, mostly due to settling (Expansion and Contraction causes joints to rub leaving spalls and cracks which deteriorates the surface over time requiring replacement). On top of that, you can't add 3,000' of Touchdown Zone Lights to each end without compromising it, so while you have to replace 6,000' of it, you might as well do the whole 12,000 and be done with it.

There is also the noise mitigation consideration of using displaced thresholds which would require the installation of an additional 1,000' of lights on each end (basically TDZL's but red for an ALSF-2) taking you to 8,000'. 11,000' landing is ample landing distance and it decreases your approach noise footprint.

There is a ton of airfield infrastructure (different wiring requirements/lead off lights etc... for CAT III operations) required and the best time to do it is during build, not later when it impacts your operations. Asphalt is more expensive, but the ability to do an overlay is incredibly advantageous because you can do it at night when you don't need two runways.

[Edited 2006-01-24 02:34:54]